"If we ignore (blowback), we ignore that at our own risks. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we are rich and free, they come to attack us because we are over there."
2007-05-16
Ron Paul Is Right
Giuliani, potentially the worst republican nominee for president in a generation is all smiles now because Ron Paul told the truth and Giuliani was able to perpetuate the ultimate lie.
Paul said: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
This is the truth. The United States has made many enemies the world over for getting our nose in other people's business. We screwed around in Afghanistan and gave Osama training, weapons, and money to fight the Soviets. We get involved in the Middle East conflict, when we should just let Israel and the rest of the area duke it out instead of jumping in the middle of it with no coherent strategy except for standing behind Israel like Hillary stands behind Bill.
These things all contributed to our being a target 6 years ago and more so now.
Giuliani and his ilk (along with most of the democrats too) would have you believe that we were attacked "because they are jealous of our freedom." Or they will say "they hate our freedom." New Zealand, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, and many other countries are also free. Are they the targets of terrorist attacks? No. Because they have the policy to not get involved in the Middle East.
Paul is right, but the Republicans have all but austracized him for these comments. It is too bad that the American people are stupid enough to believe the greatest lie of all, that we were attacked for our freedom when we were attacked for our policies.
I am glad that The Nation has pointed out that Ron Paul's assessment is coming straight from the 9/11 Commission's report. As he said, he's the only one who bothered to read the report.
In case you want to support this great man: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Paul said: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
This is the truth. The United States has made many enemies the world over for getting our nose in other people's business. We screwed around in Afghanistan and gave Osama training, weapons, and money to fight the Soviets. We get involved in the Middle East conflict, when we should just let Israel and the rest of the area duke it out instead of jumping in the middle of it with no coherent strategy except for standing behind Israel like Hillary stands behind Bill.
These things all contributed to our being a target 6 years ago and more so now.
Giuliani and his ilk (along with most of the democrats too) would have you believe that we were attacked "because they are jealous of our freedom." Or they will say "they hate our freedom." New Zealand, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, and many other countries are also free. Are they the targets of terrorist attacks? No. Because they have the policy to not get involved in the Middle East.
Paul is right, but the Republicans have all but austracized him for these comments. It is too bad that the American people are stupid enough to believe the greatest lie of all, that we were attacked for our freedom when we were attacked for our policies.
I am glad that The Nation has pointed out that Ron Paul's assessment is coming straight from the 9/11 Commission's report. As he said, he's the only one who bothered to read the report.
In case you want to support this great man: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
2007-05-10
US Consitution Article II
Article II of the US Constitution establishes the Executive Branch, the President of the United States of America. In our balance of power, the President is the most powerful single person in the United States. He (no woman has been elected president) is able to appoint officials and veto or approve laws.
Section 1 Clauses 1 & 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The first two clauses establish the President and Vice President and the term of four years. They also create the Electors, the Electoral College. There has been a movement in recent years to make the popular vote decide on who is the president. This would be quite an abboration of our great nation. Currently, each state is guaranteed at least 3 electors, but under a popular vote system, a state such as Wyoming would have the equivalent of fewer than that. Since the State's give the power to the federal government this would create a tyrany of the federal government.
Clause 3 has been made obsolete by an Amendment.
Clause 4 and 5: "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Congress is able to regulate the day of voting. Only natural born citizens can be President. There has been talk of changing this to include people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger who have been citizens for over 20 years. The argument against this is that these people will still have more allegiance to their home country than a first generation individual would.
Clause 6 has been made obsolete by an Amendment.
Clauses 7 & 8: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president will be paid for his service which will not vary during his term. Clause 8 establishes the oath of office, to which most presidents have added "so help me god" to the end (hopefully this ending will itself end soon...).
Section 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
The president is the commander of all armed forces within the nation, but only when called into service, such as through a declaration of war.
Clause 2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
The President has the power to make treaties with 2/3 of the senate concurring. He can also nominate various public officials (the most important being the Supreme Court) if a majority of the Senate approves.
Clause 3: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
The President can fill offices without the Senate's approval if done when they are on break. This is called a "recess appointment" and the official will only be in that position temporarily. John Bolton was nominated as Ambassador to the united nations this way.
Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
This section requires that the President give a "state of the union" (now a speech filled with ceremony and pomp) to the Congress. He may also bring both houses together to speak with them and most importantly "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" which establishes the "executive orders" in which the President can direct the interpretation of the laws.
Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Does lying about a blowjob count as "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" ?
You be the judge.
Section 1 Clauses 1 & 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The first two clauses establish the President and Vice President and the term of four years. They also create the Electors, the Electoral College. There has been a movement in recent years to make the popular vote decide on who is the president. This would be quite an abboration of our great nation. Currently, each state is guaranteed at least 3 electors, but under a popular vote system, a state such as Wyoming would have the equivalent of fewer than that. Since the State's give the power to the federal government this would create a tyrany of the federal government.
Clause 3 has been made obsolete by an Amendment.
Clause 4 and 5: "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Congress is able to regulate the day of voting. Only natural born citizens can be President. There has been talk of changing this to include people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger who have been citizens for over 20 years. The argument against this is that these people will still have more allegiance to their home country than a first generation individual would.
Clause 6 has been made obsolete by an Amendment.
Clauses 7 & 8: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president will be paid for his service which will not vary during his term. Clause 8 establishes the oath of office, to which most presidents have added "so help me god" to the end (hopefully this ending will itself end soon...).
Section 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
The president is the commander of all armed forces within the nation, but only when called into service, such as through a declaration of war.
Clause 2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
The President has the power to make treaties with 2/3 of the senate concurring. He can also nominate various public officials (the most important being the Supreme Court) if a majority of the Senate approves.
Clause 3: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
The President can fill offices without the Senate's approval if done when they are on break. This is called a "recess appointment" and the official will only be in that position temporarily. John Bolton was nominated as Ambassador to the united nations this way.
Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
This section requires that the President give a "state of the union" (now a speech filled with ceremony and pomp) to the Congress. He may also bring both houses together to speak with them and most importantly "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" which establishes the "executive orders" in which the President can direct the interpretation of the laws.
Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Does lying about a blowjob count as "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" ?
You be the judge.
Bush's Vetoes
It looks like GWB is going to veto another Iraq spending bill. The first he vetoed actually set a timeline for withdraw. The new bill would with hold funding until after progress is checked during the summer. These two bills are pretty big, as the democrats have been real pussies on this issue for a while. Most of them voted for "the war". That term is awful. This is not a true war its an unconstitutional operation. The only way the United States can go "to war" is for the Congress to vote to declare war, not hand the Executive Branch a carte blanche to do whatever they want. Those of you who read my blog will remember that in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 that "Congress shall have the power... to declare war." Only Congress.
The only candidate with the balls to say he was wrong is John Edwards. Hillary Clinton blames Bush, saying she was misled. Do your fucking home work before you vote to give the president a war!
Here's what I think should happen: if this bill gets vetoed, don't pass another. Cut off all money from the war, the troops, everything. The quickest way to end a government project is to cut funding. People may die on the way out but a lot more are going to die if we don't do something.
The only candidate with the balls to say he was wrong is John Edwards. Hillary Clinton blames Bush, saying she was misled. Do your fucking home work before you vote to give the president a war!
Here's what I think should happen: if this bill gets vetoed, don't pass another. Cut off all money from the war, the troops, everything. The quickest way to end a government project is to cut funding. People may die on the way out but a lot more are going to die if we don't do something.
2007-04-27
I Wouldn't Bet On It
Barney Frank, the self described minority of minorities (a "left-handed, gay Jew") usually presses for very liberal ideals. I find myself agreeing with him on some issues (civil rights) while disagreeing with him on most other things.
Today he introduced a bill to legalize internet gambling. This form of entertainment (which your correspondent happens to enjoy) was turned from a grey-area to a much darker shade of grey last year when the law was signed forcing credit card companies to not accept payments to these services.
Frank remarked, "People have said, what is the value of gambling? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn't that be our principle? If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do."
While I doubt Barney would agree with everything I do at least his principles seem right on.
Unfortunately, there are assholes in Congress, such as the representative down the road from me, who believes that even the state lottery is Satan's tool.
Today he introduced a bill to legalize internet gambling. This form of entertainment (which your correspondent happens to enjoy) was turned from a grey-area to a much darker shade of grey last year when the law was signed forcing credit card companies to not accept payments to these services.
Frank remarked, "People have said, what is the value of gambling? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn't that be our principle? If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do."
While I doubt Barney would agree with everything I do at least his principles seem right on.
Unfortunately, there are assholes in Congress, such as the representative down the road from me, who believes that even the state lottery is Satan's tool.
2007-04-24
Say Goodbye To Good TV
The Federal Censorship Commission (FCC) wants to ban violence on TV.
Don't watch NBC?
They want to ban violence on cable too, meaning The Shield and shows like it could face government censorship. The FCC was asked to submit a report 3 years ago and are just releasing it now to Congress. Someone in Congress will undoubtedly introduce a bill to ban violence, sex, etc, on all TV channels that are not HBO, Showtime, etc.
This is not a republican/democrat issue. Hillary Clinton loves to talk about banning violent video games so she will probably be all over this issue. Politicians are also hoping people will blame the crazy Korean at VA Tech on TV and things like that instead of deep-rooted psychological issues that have nothing to do with entertainment.
As soon as the bill is introduced in Congress I'll post it here with a way to contact your Congressman.
Don't watch NBC?
They want to ban violence on cable too, meaning The Shield and shows like it could face government censorship. The FCC was asked to submit a report 3 years ago and are just releasing it now to Congress. Someone in Congress will undoubtedly introduce a bill to ban violence, sex, etc, on all TV channels that are not HBO, Showtime, etc.
This is not a republican/democrat issue. Hillary Clinton loves to talk about banning violent video games so she will probably be all over this issue. Politicians are also hoping people will blame the crazy Korean at VA Tech on TV and things like that instead of deep-rooted psychological issues that have nothing to do with entertainment.
As soon as the bill is introduced in Congress I'll post it here with a way to contact your Congressman.
2007-04-18
Lots Of Blame To Go Around
Monday's tragic shooting at VA Tech was shocking and horrifying. Many components of the system broke down, and they deserve to be scrutinized.
But a quick check on any New York Times message board will reveal who our top 10% liberal citizens wish to blame: guns and more specifically the National Rifle Association. They claim that the NRA has "blood on its hands." I am a proud member of the NRA and resent these comments. There is no blood on my hands nor guilt on my conscience. Both of these items belong solely on the nutjob who killed all these people.
However, there were times at which the system failed to adequately address this issue. Besides the 2-3 hour police delay in alerting the students, a judge had ruled that Cho was at the very least a danger to himself and sentenced him to some type of residential mental treatment which most likely included some kind of medication.
Whatever happened to the proverbial rubber rooms? People said that was not civilized, but is letting these types of people go to an outpatient psychiatrist and pop some Prozacs a viable option? Maybe we need to lock some people up when they are mentally ill.
Everyone saw it: fellow students, teachers, the state police, but nobody did anything. All it would have taken is for someone in authority to say that this person is crazy and may do crazy things. This warning never came out.
Some issues have been floating around on talk radio today. I don't necessarily support all these opinions but I think they are worth considering:
1. Does the fact that he was Korean have anything to do with this? He might not have learned English until he 10 years old and had trouble socializing with others. In their culture mental illness might be stigmatized as it is in many parts of the world. They might have been reluctant to seek treatment if these problems had appeared in high school (former classmates indicate that they had) out of fear of losing face. Lastly, are his rants against "rich kids" part of a North Korean mindset?
2. Should his roommates/classmates have brought him to the attention of some type of authority before this happened? Can we lock someone up for writing crazy plays? Or should we at least evaluate them?
3. Why did the judge rule him a danger to himself but not to others? A month before the incident he had been accused of stalking.
There's lots of blame to go around. I think we need to re-evaluate the way schools and the courts handle mental illness and what people in the community can do to bring these bad eggs to the attention of authorities.
Just remember: Gun's didn't kill people, Cho Seung-Hui did.
But a quick check on any New York Times message board will reveal who our top 10% liberal citizens wish to blame: guns and more specifically the National Rifle Association. They claim that the NRA has "blood on its hands." I am a proud member of the NRA and resent these comments. There is no blood on my hands nor guilt on my conscience. Both of these items belong solely on the nutjob who killed all these people.
However, there were times at which the system failed to adequately address this issue. Besides the 2-3 hour police delay in alerting the students, a judge had ruled that Cho was at the very least a danger to himself and sentenced him to some type of residential mental treatment which most likely included some kind of medication.
Whatever happened to the proverbial rubber rooms? People said that was not civilized, but is letting these types of people go to an outpatient psychiatrist and pop some Prozacs a viable option? Maybe we need to lock some people up when they are mentally ill.
Everyone saw it: fellow students, teachers, the state police, but nobody did anything. All it would have taken is for someone in authority to say that this person is crazy and may do crazy things. This warning never came out.
Some issues have been floating around on talk radio today. I don't necessarily support all these opinions but I think they are worth considering:
1. Does the fact that he was Korean have anything to do with this? He might not have learned English until he 10 years old and had trouble socializing with others. In their culture mental illness might be stigmatized as it is in many parts of the world. They might have been reluctant to seek treatment if these problems had appeared in high school (former classmates indicate that they had) out of fear of losing face. Lastly, are his rants against "rich kids" part of a North Korean mindset?
2. Should his roommates/classmates have brought him to the attention of some type of authority before this happened? Can we lock someone up for writing crazy plays? Or should we at least evaluate them?
3. Why did the judge rule him a danger to himself but not to others? A month before the incident he had been accused of stalking.
There's lots of blame to go around. I think we need to re-evaluate the way schools and the courts handle mental illness and what people in the community can do to bring these bad eggs to the attention of authorities.
Just remember: Gun's didn't kill people, Cho Seung-Hui did.
2007-04-16
More On VA Tech Shooting
Since my last post, I've had more time to read through the reports coming from the mayhem in Blacksburg. The authorities still seem to have no idea what they are talking about, and from what I gather the FBI, ATF, VA State Police, and many other law enforcement agencies are involved in the chaos.
Regardless of the outcome, two things are evident.
1. The VA Tech Chief of Police should resign. If the school had learned anything from a shooting incident last year on campus, it is that information is key to protecting people. By not shutting down classes when a gunman can be roaming around campus is idiotic.
2. These types of tragedies can never be prevented. People remarked to me before knowing the details that this must be some "pissed off white redneck." Turns out it was a Chinese guy on a student visa. Others try to blame the gun. If not a gun, this guy could have used a bomb or something else. Do your part in preventing situations like this: keep alert, learn how use and purchase a gun to protect yourself.
Regardless of the outcome, two things are evident.
1. The VA Tech Chief of Police should resign. If the school had learned anything from a shooting incident last year on campus, it is that information is key to protecting people. By not shutting down classes when a gunman can be roaming around campus is idiotic.
2. These types of tragedies can never be prevented. People remarked to me before knowing the details that this must be some "pissed off white redneck." Turns out it was a Chinese guy on a student visa. Others try to blame the gun. If not a gun, this guy could have used a bomb or something else. Do your part in preventing situations like this: keep alert, learn how use and purchase a gun to protect yourself.
VA Tech Shooting / Guns on Campus
Today there was a horrible shooting at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. Over 30 people were shot by a single individual. This incident is the worst school shooting in US history and the worst school killing in 80 years. My thoughts are with the victims, their families, and all those involved.
While blame for this massacre solely rests on the shooter, there were certain decisions made in the months and years prior to the attack that could have reduced the extent of this horrific event.
Just several months ago, a bill was introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates that would have allowed students to carry guns on campus if they were licensed to do so. This legislation failed to advance, mostly due to pressure from the schools themselves. On the bill's defeat
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker remarked:
"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
One can only speculate on what would have happened if a student had been armed in that classroom. If only one half of 1% of students carried a gun, that would still yield a 25% chance of a student packing in a class of 50.
Heroes cannot exist when the tools to enable them are banned.
While blame for this massacre solely rests on the shooter, there were certain decisions made in the months and years prior to the attack that could have reduced the extent of this horrific event.
Just several months ago, a bill was introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates that would have allowed students to carry guns on campus if they were licensed to do so. This legislation failed to advance, mostly due to pressure from the schools themselves. On the bill's defeat
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker remarked:
"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
One can only speculate on what would have happened if a student had been armed in that classroom. If only one half of 1% of students carried a gun, that would still yield a 25% chance of a student packing in a class of 50.
Heroes cannot exist when the tools to enable them are banned.
2007-04-05
Still Can Smoke In The Old Dominion
Today, the Virginia House of Delegates defeated a proposal by Governor Tim Kaine (D) to prohibit smoking in restaurants. Despite predictions from liberals that this would be a close vote, it was not. The final tally was 40-59 in favor of the bill. I am happy that my Delegate, Tim Hugo (R), voted against this bill.
This may be a minor issue, but it and many similar potential laws represent the war against liberty. Liberty has won this battle, but the war is never ending.
This may be a minor issue, but it and many similar potential laws represent the war against liberty. Liberty has won this battle, but the war is never ending.
2007-03-10
Federal Court Backs Constitution
A federal court in Washington DC has just scrapped that cities 30+ year old ban on handguns, finding that the Second Amendment really does say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This idiot disagrees. He and his ilk believe that the clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means that only state militias can have guns. Why would the government give itself the power to be armed? By his reasoning, the First Amendment would only allow freedom of speech by the press, but not individuals. If you are only to read the Bill of Rights it will become perfectly obvious that all of the rights therein are given to individuals and not groups of people.
The meaning of the Second Amendment is that if our leaders, our governments ever get out of hand, if they ever become tyrannical to the point where they are oppressing our freedoms, we will be able to overthrow the government and give power back to the people. We need to have this power, history shows us many countries such as Nazi Germany that disarm their citizens, making them helpless when the atrocities start. Anyone who ever tries to silence me, disarm me, or take away my rights will be met with fierce resistance.
This idiot disagrees. He and his ilk believe that the clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means that only state militias can have guns. Why would the government give itself the power to be armed? By his reasoning, the First Amendment would only allow freedom of speech by the press, but not individuals. If you are only to read the Bill of Rights it will become perfectly obvious that all of the rights therein are given to individuals and not groups of people.
The meaning of the Second Amendment is that if our leaders, our governments ever get out of hand, if they ever become tyrannical to the point where they are oppressing our freedoms, we will be able to overthrow the government and give power back to the people. We need to have this power, history shows us many countries such as Nazi Germany that disarm their citizens, making them helpless when the atrocities start. Anyone who ever tries to silence me, disarm me, or take away my rights will be met with fierce resistance.
2007-03-09
2007-03-05
US Constitution Article I § 10
Section 10 of the US Constitution places limits on the powers of the individual states.
Clause 1: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Does this clause make the CSA illegal? That would have been a decision of the Supreme Court, as the states seceded before entering into their confederation. The rest of these conditions are also placed upon the federal government, such as the prohibition on granting titles of nobility.
Clause 2: No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
Yes, your state breaks the law. States (such as my home state Virginia) claim that while you do not have to pay a "sales tax" on items bought online (like books, cigarettes, or guns) you must pay a "use tax" since these items are used in the state. The phrase "by any other name" applies to this.
Clause 3: No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
The Federal Gov't is protecting itself from a group of States revolting against its power.
Clause 1: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Does this clause make the CSA illegal? That would have been a decision of the Supreme Court, as the states seceded before entering into their confederation. The rest of these conditions are also placed upon the federal government, such as the prohibition on granting titles of nobility.
Clause 2: No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
Yes, your state breaks the law. States (such as my home state Virginia) claim that while you do not have to pay a "sales tax" on items bought online (like books, cigarettes, or guns) you must pay a "use tax" since these items are used in the state. The phrase "by any other name" applies to this.
Clause 3: No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
The Federal Gov't is protecting itself from a group of States revolting against its power.
2007-02-22
I'm All Ready For Week 2
I should have posted this a few days ago, got a bit delayed...
The Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it had one of the best finishes I've ever seen. You can check it out in the youtube video below. For those who didn't watch, the race went into Nascar's overtime, called a green-white-checker finish, meaning 2 laps and that's it. It looked like Mark Martin, who has never won the 500 despite over 20 years of trying, would finally win, but Kevin Harvick beat him by .02 seconds as a huge crash loomed behind them, including a car crossing the start/finish upside down and on fire. Ricky Bobby couldn't have done it better. Not stopping the race after the crash happened added even more controversy that saw several crew chiefs suspended for cheating. I love this sport. It beats out watching anything but football!
The Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it had one of the best finishes I've ever seen. You can check it out in the youtube video below. For those who didn't watch, the race went into Nascar's overtime, called a green-white-checker finish, meaning 2 laps and that's it. It looked like Mark Martin, who has never won the 500 despite over 20 years of trying, would finally win, but Kevin Harvick beat him by .02 seconds as a huge crash loomed behind them, including a car crossing the start/finish upside down and on fire. Ricky Bobby couldn't have done it better. Not stopping the race after the crash happened added even more controversy that saw several crew chiefs suspended for cheating. I love this sport. It beats out watching anything but football!
2007-02-20
Name Change Would Dilute History
The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA is considering relocating and dropping the word "Confederacy" from its name. It would most likely rename itself to something more generic, like "Civil War Museum."
Historical revisionism such as this has no place in our society. Some claim that the word "Confederacy" now denotes racism. While the CSA may have had slaves, this was not the only issue separating the South from its Northern neighbor, but I will save that argument for a different post.
Taking Confederacy out of a museum that is associated with the Confederate Whitehouse is ludicrous. It would be like calling a Holocaust Memorial a "World War II" museum. It dilutes history.
Also, the Richmond location is appropriate as this was the main capital of the CSA. Relocating to Lexington, VA would most likely harm Richmond's economy and also separate the Museum from the CSA Whitehouse, leading to less visitors learning about that turbulent time in our Nation's history.
Regardless of your view on the South, anyone with a respect for history should write the Museum and discourage these changes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
